Fundamental Law of Ice Cream Congestion
April 9, 2019 9:02 AM   Subscribe

Time for the annual Ben & Jerry’s seminar in transportation economics: Substitute “freeway” for “free cone” and you’ve got a pretty good description of how transportation economics works. When it comes to our road system, every rush hour is like free cone day at Ben and Jerry’s.
posted by asperity (21 comments total) 12 users marked this as a favorite
 
I see, as roads and travel gets more expensive, poor people only get to travel on free ice cream day, but the rest of the time the roads and cones are reserved for Jerry and Ben.
posted by GoblinHoney at 9:23 AM on April 9, 2019 [2 favorites]




The regressive effects of toll roads and congestion pricing can be alleviated though public transportation options. The problem is that comprehensive public transportation options take a long time to build out from scratch, and so you have a chicken-and-the-egg funding and demand problem. Without public transportation, congestion pricing is unfairly regressive. Without congestion pricing, there's less demand and funding for public transportation.

An alternative, directly progressive system would be a progressive mileage tax based on the present value, fuel efficiency, and weight of the vehicle. This could be assessed at the time the vehicle's license is renewed, based on the miles driven since the last renewal. A gas-guzzling luxury SUV worth $100,000 should be taxed more per mile than a fuel-efficient economy car worth $10,000.

Such a system wouldn't be perfect, since it uses a proxy for income, treats all miles equally, and doesn't take into account that lower income people often have longer commutes than wealthier people, but I think it would be an improvement on the status quo. It would also be an incentive for people to keep their cars longer, as buying a new car would typically mean a jump in the mileage tax paid.

And even if all it led to was rich people driving economy cars, that would still have the advantages of (generally speaking) improving fuel economy, lowering insurance costs, and lowering the value of luxury cars as a status marker.
posted by jedicus at 9:49 AM on April 9, 2019 [3 favorites]


Without public transportation, congestion pricing is unfairly regressive.

The article is specifically talking about NYC, where that's definitely not the case.

Beyond that, though - pretty much every news article I see about congestion pricing frames it as a tax to support transit. Which makes sense, because that's the way it had to be sold in order to get it passed. But really, the purpose of congestion pricing is to reduce congestion, and (given what we now know about induced demand), the only way to do that is by reducing the number of vehicles on the street.

Obviously, in the majority of America, a major reduction in car use won't be possible in the short term. That's why it's so important for NYC to be a leader here - in order to show that it can work, and how, and what the benefits are.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:03 AM on April 9, 2019 [6 favorites]


I am not opposed to congestion pricing but I do not like this kind of simplified econ 101 explainer for a complex and dynamic problem.
posted by Pembquist at 10:29 AM on April 9, 2019 [6 favorites]


NYC is a border city, which TBH seems like it's going to make congestion pricing a particularly sticky issue, given that NYC currently appears to be poised to collect 100% of the revenue (while also exempting some city residents from the charge).

NY already benefits from a lot of "double-dip" tax revenue from NJ commuters. Funneling money from the congestion charge into the MTA without giving a cut to NJTransit seems like it very well could be the final straw.

I would not be at all surprised if this ends up being challenged for violating the commerce clause (potentially ending up in SCOTUS where it could jeopardize large number of toll roads that are located strategically adjacent to state borders).

If NYC botches this implementation, it's going to set this otherwise-good idea back another decade.
posted by schmod at 10:39 AM on April 9, 2019


I would not be at all surprised if this ends up being challenged for violating the commerce clause

But the fees aren't going to be levied at the state border, and again, they aren't "taxes to fund the MTA," they're fees for the use of city infrastructure. You might as well argue that out-of-towners shouldn't pay subway fare because it's not their subway.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:44 AM on April 9, 2019 [2 favorites]


I'm in favor of congestion pricing (which so far has less than majority support in NYC but people haven't really had a chance to see it in action yet) but agree that proper implementation for it needs to feed not just the MTA (which desperately needs it) but PATH, NJT and Metro North as well.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:53 AM on April 9, 2019 [1 favorite]


From the article:

It’s a safe bet that most of the people waiting in line value their time at something less than $5.00 an hour if they’re willing to wait that long for a “free” cone.

Nah. It's a safe bet that most of the people waiting in line do not assign any particular numerical value to their time. But it's implicit in their actions, say economists who do not notice that the people waiting in that line are enjoying the celebratory atmosphere of Free Ice Cream Day! or the excuse to break routine and spend half an hour outside in the sun -- other goods you pay for by not being Oscar Wilde Homo economicus.

(I mean I don't like crowds myself and I am cautiously in favor of congestion pricing but I still had to get that off my chest)
posted by aws17576 at 11:28 AM on April 9, 2019 [5 favorites]


i concur with Pembquist - this logic, while fun and icecreamy, is making me cranky... so we charge for the use of roads and then simply less people will commute? it's not like i NEED to eat ice cream every day, but i (like my fellow commuters) certainly do need to commute. and simply shifting all of those commuters to public transportation without a plan for the increased volume will not be an instant fix.

so yeah. it's a cute tale, but it is absolutely not a good description of how transportation economics works.
posted by rude.boy at 11:33 AM on April 9, 2019 [2 favorites]


But how do y'all feel about ice cream?

Currently visiting the US city with the least traffic congestion, wishing there were as many ice cream shops as there are lane-miles of highway-speed road. Could really use more ice cream.
posted by asperity at 1:03 PM on April 9, 2019


so yeah. it's a cute tale, but it is absolutely not a good description of how transportation economics works.

It's not that you 'need' to commute, you (also the global 'you', not just you individually) have made economic choices based on an affordable commute. 'Transportation economics' works by totally subsidizing all the costs of transport.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:24 PM on April 9, 2019 [4 favorites]


say economists who do not notice that the people waiting in that line are enjoying the celebratory atmosphere of Free Ice Cream Day!

Economists do notice that. It's pretty much what Eco 201 is all about.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:25 PM on April 9, 2019


It's not that you 'need' to commute, you (also the global 'you', not just you individually) have made economic choices based on an affordable commute. 'Transportation economics' works by totally subsidizing all the costs of transport.

Right. Basically, in NYC right now, we've got:

Subway: In general the way we'd prefer most people move from place to place if walking/biking/skating/etc. isn't feasible. Doesn't cover all needs or areas but does a pretty good job of it. Is charged for.

Buses: Cover the area the Subway doesn't. Come with their own "ease of use" problems and use the public roadways, need some image rehabilitation, but desperately necessary especially to less affluent parts of the community. Is charged for.

Uber/Lyft/Via/Taxis: The "sometimes food" of local transportation, theoretically available to all who can pay for them, also using the public roadways. Is charged for (and charges passed onto city coffers by way of Taxi medalions and other means not worth going into here.)

CitiBike: More than just an experiment or curiosity by this point but still not a facet of most New Yorkers' everyday lives. Is charged for, though not a lot. Takes up public roadways, but not a lot. Doesn't really solve any rush-hour people-movement issues.

Private Vehicles: Take up public roadways with both traffic and parking, tag fees go to the state (and maybe in part to the city? I can't recall for sure) but Commuters are also coming from New Jersey and Connecticut in large amounts, with cars with NJ and CT tags. Trucks also, of course, fall into this category and are indespensible for urban distribution as currently envisioned by public infrastructure. Private commuter vehicles are not. NOT CHARGED FOR in most cases (though some bridges/tunnels have tolls.)

SO...

Analysis shows us that the group causing the collective congestion problem on the public roadways, thus backing up busses and trucking as well, is also the group paying nothing for use of the commons (or, at least, paying nothing into the commons for the pleasure of doing so.) For many quality of life reasons, we want the vehicular traffic significantly decreased, which also means increasing the viability of "alternative" transit options* which need both funding and modernizing.

Congestion Pricing is a win-win in this regard. I understand that it will cost money of folks who weren't paying money before, but with all due respect they were paying for something that didn't need to be free, and it being free when alternatives weren't has caused problems. We're a long way from being able to make the Subways free (though if we ever do, expect chronic homelessness in NYC to be solved within the same year) but we can do something about clogging up the arteries in Manhattan.

*Much like 1990s rock radio, "alternative" here means "what the grand majority of people are already into"
posted by Navelgazer at 4:15 PM on April 9, 2019 [7 favorites]


Doesn't really solve any rush-hour people-movement issues.

There's been some good results out of London, where they've been building serious bike infrastructure that makes it much less risky for people to commute using bikes.

I'm guessing in this analogy that remote working is not getting free ice-cream because Ben and Jerry's is bad vanilla with the toppings mixed in
posted by Merus at 5:48 PM on April 9, 2019


The customers (drivers) are paying zero for their use of the limited capacity of the road system, and we’re rationing this valuable product based on people’s willingness to tolerate delays (with the result that lot’s of people who don’t attach a particularly high value to their time are slowing down things for everyone).

What the hell is this? He thinks poor people commute long distances because they have nothing better to do? His analogy mostly works, but this was a terrible direction to take it.
posted by agentofselection at 11:52 PM on April 9, 2019


Another thing that makes NYC different from a lot of places, notably the Bay Area, w/r/t congestion pricing is that those commuting into NYC by car are by and large NOT poor commuters but rather rich ones. Poor commuters live within Bus and Subway range and take that. Rich commuters live in Long Island, North Jersey, and Fairfield County and often drive into town. So this isn't regressive the way it could be elsewhere.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:27 AM on April 10, 2019 [2 favorites]


Poor commuters take the dollar vans.

Thanks to funding-cuts, one-way fares on NJTransit can be as high as $15, and that's before parking at the station (or other last-mile transfers on either side) is even factored in.
posted by schmod at 8:13 AM on April 10, 2019


It’s a safe bet that most of the people waiting in line value their time at something less than $5.00 an hour if they’re willing to wait that long for a “free” cone.

You might even find that some people will actually pay time in order to stick it to the man.
posted by srboisvert at 8:40 AM on April 10, 2019


NYC Council to Mayor: Do More to Break the Car Culture. "City Council Speaker Corey Johnson is demanding the de Blasio administration build 50 miles of protected bike lanes [per year], expand an NYPD squad that investigates serious crashes, double the number of public plazas and create more car-free streets — the latest salvo in Johnson’s continued push against the mayor to “break the car culture.”"
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:05 AM on April 11, 2019 [1 favorite]




« Older as above   |   caress that precious ivory, smell its irate... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments